servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives
It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives
Lootman wrote:servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives
It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.
Arborbridge wrote:Lootman wrote:servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives
It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.
I think "totally screwed up" is just a little wide of the mark
Arborbridge wrote:Lootman wrote:servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives
It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.
I think "totally screwed up" is just a little wide of the mark
Lootman wrote:servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives
It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.
UncleEbenezer wrote:Lootman wrote:servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives
It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.
Someone certainly screwed up reporting those trials.
I wonder if there are cultural differences in evidence there? American and German efficiency vs British muddling-through?
If I expect to be given a choice, I might make the effort to try and inform myself. But that's never going to be easy, with all the rivalries out there, and the PR teams and political interests surrounding them.
Lootman wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:Lootman wrote:It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.
Someone certainly screwed up reporting those trials.
I wonder if there are cultural differences in evidence there? American and German efficiency vs British muddling-through?
If I expect to be given a choice, I might make the effort to try and inform myself. But that's never going to be easy, with all the rivalries out there, and the PR teams and political interests surrounding them.
More bad news for AZN:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neca-model
Looks like it as been amateur hour in Oxford.
Mike4 wrote:Lootman wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:Someone certainly screwed up reporting those trials.
I wonder if there are cultural differences in evidence there? American and German efficiency vs British muddling-through?
If I expect to be given a choice, I might make the effort to try and inform myself. But that's never going to be easy, with all the rivalries out there, and the PR teams and political interests surrounding them.
More bad news for AZN:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neca-model
Looks like it as been amateur hour in Oxford.
And yet, it seems to be the only one that prevents infection (as opposed to just suppresses symptoms), as the BBC seems to have been picking up on all day.
servodude wrote:
that's a pretty big claim to put about
Mike4 wrote:servodude wrote:that's a pretty big claim to put about
Isn't it just!
Dr John Campbell (noted for his moderate and reliable analysis) seems to have swallowed it whole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fXn1PC ... hnCampbell
Arizona11 wrote:I was watching a medical expert on tv talking about the Pfizer vaccine and was horrified and shocked when he announced that the vaccine does not necessarily prevent transmission.
Arizona11 wrote:My cousin for example is well into her 80’s and can’t be persuaded to have the vaccine due to her age.
Arizona11 wrote:I really think this problem with the transmission factor needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I would be interested in what others think as I thought the vaccine was the answer to our prayers and the virus would effectively be eliminated in due course. Now I am very unsure that is true.
Arizona11 wrote: the vaccine does not necessarily prevent transmission.
.
.
.
If people choose not to have the vaccine, surely we are not expected to wear a mask for the rest of our lives in case we might infect an unvaccinated person?
.
.
.
We will be no better off than before the vaccines were given out as far as stopping the pandemic.
.
.
.
“can I visit granny now I have been vaccinated?” ... My cousin for example is well into her 80’s and can’t be persuaded to have the vaccine due to her age. Does this mean I can never see her again in case I inadvertently am carrying the virus asymptomatically as I have had the vaccine?
These data also suggest that this half dose and full dose regime could help to prevent transmission of the virus, evidenced by lower rates of asymptomatic infection in the vaccinees, with further information to become available when trial data are next evaluated.
Arizona11 wrote:As the Pfizer vaccine is supposed to be 95% effective, how do I know if I am actually protected or unluckily one of the 5% not protected? If I have no reaction after having the jab, does that mean something or nothing? I hope to actually leave my house once vaccinated and maybe see someone for the first time since March, but I worry that I may be in the same situation as I am in now and may catch the virus as I will think I am protected when I am not. Then all my caution would have been for nothing.
Any advice or help would be very much appreciated. Thanks.
Arizona11 wrote:The real problem is that the Pfizer jab does not appear to prevent transmission, although they are still testing that. So if everyone gets the jab, the virus will never go as it will just pass round and round between the population. Really we need a jab which kills the virus and I believe the AZ one does that, so really is a better bet long term.
tjh290633 wrote:Arizona11 wrote:The real problem is that the Pfizer jab does not appear to prevent transmission, although they are still testing that. So if everyone gets the jab, the virus will never go as it will just pass round and round between the population. Really we need a jab which kills the virus and I believe the AZ one does that, so really is a better bet long term.
Does that mean that everybody becomes a carrier of the virus, even though they don't suffer from it?
i.e. it cures the symptoms but not the disease?
TJH
tjh290633 wrote:Arizona11 wrote:The real problem is that the Pfizer jab does not appear to prevent transmission, although they are still testing that. So if everyone gets the jab, the virus will never go as it will just pass round and round between the population. Really we need a jab which kills the virus and I believe the AZ one does that, so really is a better bet long term.
Does that mean that everybody becomes a carrier of the virus, even though they don't suffer from it?
i.e. it cures the symptoms but not the disease?
TJH
Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests